Manny Malhotra

Next Captain of the Chicago Wolves

Future coach in the NHL
- Mattjd123

Give him one more year, I mean he did have a serious eye injury.

Totally agree. But I think that's short sighted. Here's the breakdown over the next two years.

Thornton (next 2 years):
2012-13 - $7,000,000 (cap $7,000,000)
2013-14 $6,000,000 (cap $7,000,000)

Luongo (next 2 years):
2012-13 - $6,714,000 (cap $5,333,333)
2013-14 - $6,714,000 (cap $5,333,333)

Even with the additional six years I think Lu has better value.
- bloatedmosquito

Completely off topic as a What If for the next CBA. It dawned on me that not only is this summer an uneventful one in terms of moves due to the uncertain CBA but GMs are also clearly no longer content with hockey trades, needing to "win" the trade outright in order for it to be a success. Throw in the fact that teams are locking up their best players longer term and that the league is asking for extended rights to those players for even longer, it's possible that this summer might be the new norm.

My idea is this: instead of what the league are asking for, that all years on a contract must be paid equally, how interesting would it be if a player were traded and his cap hit would be recalculated based on the remaining $ he's owed?

Example: a player gets a 7 year deal @ 42m for an aav of 6m per, but front loaded like this 10m, 10m, 7m, 7m, 4m, 3m, 3m. If said player stays for the full 7 years, the cap hit remains at 6m. If the player is traded, let's say with 3 years remaining, the cap hit for the new team would be 3.33m per (4+3+3 /3 yrs), thus making it far easier to move players around and strengthen your team without doing a rebuild via the draft for the better part of a decade.

Completely off topic as a What If for the next CBA. It dawned on me that not only is this summer an uneventful one in terms of moves due to the uncertain CBA but GMs are also clearly no longer content with hockey trades, needing to "win" the trade outright in order for it to be a success. Throw in the fact that teams are locking up their best players longer term and that the league is asking for extended rights to those players for even longer, it's possible that this summer might be the new norm.

My idea is this: instead of what the league are asking for, that all years on a contract must be paid equally, how interesting would it be if a player were traded and his cap hit would be recalculated based on the remaining $ he's owed?

Example: a player gets a 7 year deal @ 42m for an aav of 6m per, but front loaded like this 10m, 10m, 7m, 7m, 4m, 3m, 3m. If said player stays for the full 7 years, the cap hit remains at 6m. If the player is traded, let's say with 3 years remaining, the cap hit for the new team would be 3.33m per (4+3+3 /3 yrs), thus making it far easier to move players around and strengthen your team without doing a rebuild via the draft for the better part of a decade.
- AlexF

Interesting idea. I reject it only based on the fact that all the fans would be throwing numbers in with every trade proposal. Imagine the errors and idiocy created!

Is no one else concerned with our track record of bringing in aged leaders at a high price and failing big time? Messier and Sundin?

Is no one else concerned with our track record of bringing in aged leaders at a high price and failing big time? Messier and Sundin?
- stuckey

I don't think Sundin was a failure, he gave the team a lift and helped Kesler develop. There are others that have fared less well though... Mostly what ends up happening is that they just aren't good enough still to contribute to the level of the humongous expectations, or even the very low expectations, such as Morrison, Nolan, Schneider et al.

I don't think Sundin was a failure, he gave the team a lift and helped Kesler develop. There are others that have fared less well though... Mostly what ends up happening is that they just aren't good enough still to contribute to the level of the humongous expectations, or even the very low expectations, such as Morrison, Nolan, Schneider et al.
- 1970vintage

Sundin was a failure because we didn't sign him to be a mentor. That was a siver lining to a failed season.

How much expectation will be on Doan. Recipe for a disaster.

Sundin was a failure because we didn't sign him to be a mentor. That was a siver lining to a failed season.

How much expectation will be on Doan. Recipe for a disaster.
- stuckey

Because the players around Sundin failed doesnt make that a failure of a signing. Sundin was our best player in that disappointing playoffs.

Sundin was a failure because we didn't sign him to be a mentor. That was a siver lining to a failed season.

How much expectation will be on Doan. Recipe for a disaster.
- stuckey

Sundin was a failure because Mitchell gave the damn puck away. He put up a ppg in the playoffs. Couldn't have asked for much more from the guy.

I don't think Sundin was a failure, he gave the team a lift and helped Kesler develop. There are others that have fared less well though... Mostly what ends up happening is that they just aren't good enough still to contribute to the level of the humongous expectations, or even the very low expectations, such as Morrison, Nolan, Schneider et al.
- 1970vintage

Morrison was good enough but AV just simply doesnt like him. He went with Schaefer instead and we all know how that went. Morrison went on to have a pretty good season but did get a serious injury later. He was carrying the offensive load for the Flames in what was looking like a comeback year.

The 4rth line mess has always been AV's doing. The guys he goes with cant even compete in the NHL aside from Lappy. As far as I'm concerned, Gillis' hands have been tied on the issue. Bringing in better players is a dead end.

Sundin was a failure because Mitchell gave the damn puck away. He put up a ppg in the playoffs. Couldn't have asked for much more from the guy.
- micah555

WTF? Did you miss from Xmas on that year? Apart from the shootout goal in TO he was a failure. Hardly Mitchells fault. Wow, a whole ppg.

WTF? Did you miss from Xmas on that year? Apart from the shootout goal in TO he was a failure. Hardly Mitchells fault. Wow, a whole ppg.
- stuckey

The worst part about getting Sundin was all the prospects and draft picks we had to give up to get him... (frank)ing Gillis. What an idiot

WTF? Did you miss from Xmas on that year? Apart from the shootout goal in TO he was a failure. Hardly Mitchells fault. Wow, a whole ppg.
- stuckey

I meant ppg to be point per game. I was too lazy to type it. I'm assume you meant to mock the term powerplay goal.

Mitchell gave the puck to Havlat for the tying goal in the final minutes of game 4. It's widely considered the turning point of the series as we would have been up 3-1 instead of tied at 2-2.

Christmas on was pretty irrelevant unless you blame Sundin for not getting us the President's Trophy. The playoff are what mattered and he put up 7 points in 6 games against the Hawks. He wasn't why we failed.

Morrison was good enough but AV just simply doesnt like him. He went with Schaefer instead and we all know how that went. Morrison went on to have a pretty good season but did get a serious injury later. He was carrying the offensive load for the Flames in what was looking like a comeback year.

The 4rth line mess has always been AV's doing. The guys he goes with cant even compete in the NHL aside from Lappy. As far as I'm concerned, Gillis' hands have been tied on the issue. Bringing in better players is a dead end.
- boonerbuck

I liked Morrison too, thought he deserved a chance to play, but you cannot deny that the choices by MG on older players has not worked out as well as we would have hoped.

Morrison was good enough but AV just simply doesnt like him. He went with Schaefer instead and we all know how that went. Morrison went on to have a pretty good season but did get a serious injury later. He was carrying the offensive load for the Flames in what was looking like a comeback year.

The 4rth line mess has always been AV's doing. The guys he goes with cant even compete in the NHL aside from Lappy. As far as I'm concerned, Gillis' hands have been tied on the issue. Bringing in better players is a dead end.
- boonerbuck

The Canucks were trying to fill a role on the team and Morrison didn't fit that role. I like him and wish we could have played him, but he played 1st line centre on the Flames until he got predictably injured and missed the end of the regular season; meanwhile, we won the division. Tough to critique that move in hindsight.

Both, IF Doan signs he can play with the twins and probably have a very productive year. That allows Burrows to slide down to the second line where him and Kes have chemistry. Now we have two good top six lines with the second being Booth Kes Bur.

If Kassian can show he's ready to stay in the NHL, that POSSIBLY allows him to play RW on the third line making Hansen and or Raymond available in a trade with Lu. Signing Doan gives Gillis a lot of options, well maybe not a lot but definitely more.
- LeftCoaster

SHUT your mouth... I will not have them trade Hansen, I will not have it

SHUT your mouth... I will not have them trade Hansen, I will not have it
- mascqp

Hansen is a perfect third liner and at a great cap hit. If anything, we need more players like him in our bottom 6.

Give him one more year, I mean he did have a serious eye injury.
- pker2theend

Agreed.

Hansen is a perfect third liner and at a great cap hit. If anything, we need more players like him in our bottom 6.
- Nucker101

Thank you

Completely off topic as a What If for the next CBA. It dawned on me that not only is this summer an uneventful one in terms of moves due to the uncertain CBA but GMs are also clearly no longer content with hockey trades, needing to "win" the trade outright in order for it to be a success. Throw in the fact that teams are locking up their best players longer term and that the league is asking for extended rights to those players for even longer, it's possible that this summer might be the new norm.

My idea is this: instead of what the league are asking for, that all years on a contract must be paid equally, how interesting would it be if a player were traded and his cap hit would be recalculated based on the remaining $ he's owed?

Example: a player gets a 7 year deal @ 42m for an aav of 6m per, but front loaded like this 10m, 10m, 7m, 7m, 4m, 3m, 3m. If said player stays for the full 7 years, the cap hit remains at 6m. If the player is traded, let's say with 3 years remaining, the cap hit for the new team would be 3.33m per (4+3+3 /3 yrs), thus making it far easier to move players around and strengthen your team without doing a rebuild via the draft for the better part of a decade.
- AlexF

It's a good idea.

It would definately allow older players to stay relevant longer. There would be value in those long term contracts so the players would like this idea. GMs would be more likely to hand out long term/big dollar contracts if they know there is a 'weasle' clause built in to any offer. It would allow cap strapped teams to still improve through trades. And it would definitely increase the amount of trades.

The only negative I can think of right now is it wouldn't help the small market/cap floor teams very much. Large salary, small cap hit isn't really helpful to 40% of NHL teams.

Saying that, you're one smart dog. Sorry, smart wolf.

Edit: would it work for all contracts or just long term (ex. 5+ years)? For players at the lower end of the pay scale their cap hit would be minuscule.

2nd Edit: I don't think it's beneficial in Lu's situation. I believe he's owed $53.6 over 10 years. That wouldn't change his cap hit. A bit of a wash in Lu's case.

It's a good idea.

It would definately allow older players to stay relevant longer. There would be value in those long term contracts so the players would like this idea. GMs would be more likely to hand out long term/big dollar contracts if they know there is a 'weasle' clause built in to any offer. It would allow cap strapped teams to still improve through trades. And it would definitely increase the amount of trades.

The only negative I can think of right now is it wouldn't help the small market/cap floor teams very much. Large salary, small cap hit isn't really helpful to 40% of NHL teams.

Saying that, you're one smart dog. Sorry, smart wolf.

Edit: would it work for all contracts or just long term (ex. 5+ years)? For players at the lower end of the pay scale their cap hit would be minuscule.

2nd Edit: I don't think it's beneficial in Lu's situation. I believe he's owed $53.6 over 10 years. That wouldn't change his cap hit. A bit of a wash in Lu's case.
- bloatedmosquito

I believe Lu is owed around 44 mill over the remaining 10 yrs.

Hockeyy Insiderr‏@HockeyyInsiderr

BREAKIG NEWS: The #TBLightning have agreed on 2 year deal with Dmitry Korobov of the KHL. (solid d-man, great addition).


Say what you want about this guy but he gets the scoops quicker than anyone.

blog up

blog up
- IanEsplen

https://twitter.com/samja...status/231100211953557504

The Canucks were trying to fill a role on the team and Morrison didn't fit that role. I like him and wish we could have played him, but he played 1st line centre on the Flames until he got predictably injured and missed the end of the regular season; meanwhile, we won the division. Tough to critique that move in hindsight.
- micah555

Gillis invited him to camp to try out for the 4rth line C opening. He played very well for the Canucks and his only dissapointment was in the second game in a back to back. That was when AV cut him. Look at the bums AV went with instead,,,a useless POS who`s injured himself on faceoffs and Peter Schaefer...

The one thing good thing that cutting Morrison lead to was Lappy being picked up for that role after AV screwed it all up... but at the time it was his cluster (frank) all on his own.

The excuse of him being too old was contradictory like Morrison himsef stated. He was the same age when Gillis invited him and BMO claims that he made it clear with Gillis that it wouldnt be just a goodwill gesture. If it isnt a serious try out... he wanted nothing to do with it. The comments about wanting to go younger was a slap in the face and people would have to have a short memory to buy that since Gillis talked up the decision to invite Morrison from the beginning. He did a complete 180 to support AV.

Please dont ask me to post all the quotes and interviews from both parties involved all over again. HanktheTank and I went through this for a couple of weeks...Hank had little choice but to concede when I was done.

Morrison flat out put it on AV(like so many have) after his strong camp. We actually played more than half the season short a C down as well... but it all worked out in the end.... in spite of AV.

Arnott has been a UFA for 4 weeks. Interesting that, if the Province writers are keen on having him here, that they'd take this long to breach the topic. And that's not even mentioning that no one else anywhere has been talking about this guy until very recently.
- AlexF

http://blogs.theprovince....shoulder-wrist-surgeries/

Today Kesler's agent says the Canucks management jumped the gun on Kesler's "ahead of schedual" assesment. Now it's been reported he had wrist surgery as well so maybe they idea of gambling that Schroeder will simply fill in all the missing needs at center until kesler returns in december is not so realistic. Not unless Boinker is now running the team.

Point is, the timing of the Arnott inquiry and this stuff Kesler's agent is saying may not be a mystery. Kesler is not ahead of schedual. Possibly behind for all we know.